SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER)<br /> <br /> Sri. K.S. Subhash has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties – Kerala Water Authority and Deputy Tahsildar, RR., Alappuzha. The brief statement of the contentions are as follows:- The complainant has taken a room owned by the Municipal authorities of Alappuzha for his business purpose and has taken water connection from the 1st opposite party for the said room. Since the service of the 1st opposite party in supply of water was not at all proper, the complainant has filed a petition before the 1st opposite party for termination of water connection. As such the 1st opposite party has terminated water connection of the complainant, after receiving the entire amount from the complainant in the year 2001, in connection with the said water connection/vide Consumer No.2715. But without getting any intimation from the 1st opposite party the complainant received an RR notice dt. 6.3.06 from the second opposite party stating that an amount of Rs.35,501/- is to be remitted for the period 4/91 to 12/01. Before the said notice, complainant had no notice from the 1st opposite party regarding the above assessment details. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party, the complainant filed this complaint for an order to set aside the RR notice and its due amount. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to the opposite parties. They have accepted the notice. Second opposite party filed statement. 1st opposite party has not filed any version. Considering the long absence of the 1st opposite party, they were set exparte on 21.7.08 by this Forum. In the statement, the 2nd opposite party has stated that 1st opposite party ha submitted the RR requisition to the 2nd opposite party for the realization of the amount of Rs.35,501/- which is outstanding in the name of the complainant. As per requisition, the District Collector has issued the certificate for the collection of the said amount. On that basis, the 2nd opposite party has issued the RR notice to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party has further stated that all other connected matters of the case has to be explained by the 1st opposite party.<br /> 3. Considering the contentions of the complainant and 2nd opposite party, this Forum has raised the following issues:-<br /> (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? <br /> (2) Compensation and costs.<br /> 4. Issues (1) and (2):- On the part of the complainant he has filed the proof affidavit and one document – Ext.A1 – marked. Ext.A1 document is the demand notice No. B6/189/06-AWS/2715/ND-K Dis./B9/5809/06 of DCA dt. 20.2.06 – Executive Engineer KWA. PHDivi/Alpy issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant, for the realization of a sum of Rs.35,501/- towards the water charges for the period from 4/91 to 12/01, together with cumulative interest per month of outstanding balance from 2/06. In the proof affidavit, the complainant has stated that before the issuance of the said demand notice, he had not received any notice from the 1st opposite party regarding amount by way of water charges. He has further stated that his water connection vide Consumer No.2715 has terminated in the year 2001 after remitting the full amounts. But in this connection it is to be noted that the first opposite party has not filed any document or any statement before this Forum denying the statement of the complainant. So there is no reason to disbelieve the complainant and his statement. So the notice issued by the 2nd opposite party, under the requisition of the 1st opposite party for the collection of the said amount, has no locus standi. After receiving the full amounts from the complainant, the first opposite party has terminated the water connection of the complainant. So the first opposite party has no authority to issue RR steps for any amounts. The first opposite party ought to have collected the entire dues at the time of termination of water connection from the complainant. The present notice for RR is without any previous notice regarding the bill amount and details of the consumption of water and other details will not stand in any way. So the action of the first opposite party is highly unfair illegal arbitrary and highly unauthorized and it will come, within the purview of “deficiency in service” and the 1st opposite party has to compensate for this. Since there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party, complainnt is entitled to get compensation and costs also. So the issues are found in favour of the complainant. <br /> In the result, we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed. Hence we hereby direct the 2nd opposite party to withdraw RR notice mentioned above, issued to the complainant immediately, since the complainant is not liable to remit any amount to the 1st opposite party by way of water charges. We hereby direct the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and inconvenience and for deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party together with a cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite parties to comply with this order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> Complaint allowed.<br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of August, 2008. <br /> Sd/- SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN :<br /> <br /> Sd/- SRI. JIMMY KORAH:<br /> <br /> Sd/- SMT. N. SHAJITHA BEEVI:<br /> <br /> APPENDIX:- <br /> Evidence of the complainant:-<br /> Ext.A1 - Demand notice<br /> <br /> Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil<br /> <br /> // True Copy //<br /> By Order<br /> <br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> To<br /> Complainant/Oppo.parties/S.F.<br /> Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:-<br />